|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind | |||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
There should not be such hysteria about defining speech. I meant it is difficult to do so in a technical mode. If 5000 different life forms were recorded, including mimmicking parrots, dolphins, gorillas - and one was a human - none would have a problem which is human speech. The deliberation here is not coherent or honest, but aimed only at diffusion by scientifically contrived jargonising. One of the things associated with speech are 'WORDS' - but now you are going to propose words by parrots! I'm not going there: being honest is not the same as being scientifically honest these days.
And no, I never meant speech is 'one of the earliest things to happen in the universe' in chronological terms. But it did change the universe and it is the only factor which denotes humanity. In similar vein, I did also expand the theory of perception here, that just as humans became humans via speech, with all their works being speech derived - then Genesis is saying the universe was brought into existence by a 'word', which represents an action derived from a thought: 'AND THE LORD *SAID* LET THEIR BE LIGHT'. The aspect of 'said' is alligned with speech. No other tools are mentioned, and this becomes a matter of perception when it is seen as all matter, including time, energy, forces, waves, particles, etc - are post-universe factors. What else is left as a possibility? What other factor do we have which is not provable this way - it only becomes possible when we eliminate the tools we propose as applying: they do not if they are not pre-universal factors. The latter is the only premise which bars our every means of determining anything which we are currently not able to fathom: a pre-universe scenario. We have to shut off all universal components!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I don't think so.
quote: Also, "Broca's Area" has not relevence to speech datings. What is actually going on is you don't read what is posted in reply to you. You whip off junk without thinking and you never support your assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
All under 6000:
quote: Of coz, the above, and all that sort of descriptions, are not evidences of speech, but that's there is: theories and specs about anatomy. Civilizations which have no back-up of datings or follow-up continuation. Speech is the most important factor in established humanity's origins - as opposed skeletal finds. Proof of speech is what speech derives - names, dialogues depicting an evidential, historical factor which represents established communites of civilization, as well as specificality recallted of names, kings, wars, events - in an elevating thread of grads. It does not exist. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
To graduate from the current brick wall, the next step is to assume speech is a unique human attribute, a difference in kind than degree, not a result of the given thread of evolution, not prevalent for 100s of 1000s of years, and thus not part of the communication modes of all other life forms: what consequences can be derived from it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There's also a whole archive of paradigms and impactions applicable, which altogether make the atheist assumption a muted one. The matter of speech and animal communications is a blatant one, but also open to contriving and manipulation - which is 'mostly' but not all, based on wilful manipulation. Thus I did not allow myself to be quagmired in that scam. Other factors such as spontainity, improvisation, new thought, etc, etc are also applicable here. And the notion of superior brains, while these are the mark of humans, is not related to the attribute of speech; nor that other life forms 'speak' [as opposed communicate] in their own respective realms - which implies that they are capable of speech in the future by adaptation. The breakaway between difference of kind instead of degree is nowhere better represented than with human speech. Its manipulation casts a poor image of atheist science. I chose the example of speech because it is a no no nonsense one, removed from the charade of millions of years evidences provided in other instances. IMHO, there is an abject fear and deflection in the responses made to it - and it is, like all fanatical religious doctrines touted by atheists, no different from what they use as their defense. Its just another form of Talibanic neo-atheist, slight of hand casino science. I don't expect success here: many cherished premises would fall by the wayside if it was indisputably established that speech is a unique [that troubling word again!] attribute of humans, not millions of years old, and by subsequence not a result of evolution, adaptation or a graduation of bird and gorilla grants, hisses and coos. i remind again - all I asked as a proof is a human name, a date, place or an attached historical factor alligned to it: there should by millions, all over the place. I'll accept just a ONER.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: True. But so is everything - including your response to this post, what makes a pineapple a pineapple, and how stars are formed. Its casino science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The line is: when the said stimuli does not result in human speech.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I once read a scientific explanation relating to Genesis' 'kind' categorising methodology [I will try to locate it]. It is transcendent of ToE's speciation in that it points to certain biological commonalities in, for example, all water borne life forms - and the same with all land based life forms - the methodolgy employed in Genesis. The embarrassing feature of it is, these bio strains of commonalities are NOT considered in ToE. While this allows cross-speciation between some or all life forms in one particular group - it negates cross-speciation of life forms outside that 'kind'. This alligns with ToE - but only by default, while opposing ToE - by exposing his error. It also vindicates Genesis in this instance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I have already seen your arguements as honest and intelligence based, but somewhat one-channelled. In the quote, I too have always seen that all actions are based on an external factor impacting. IOW, nothing happens by two particles jitterbugging with each other by themselves; H does not meet O and valla we have water here on earth, and which is critical for life, and life just happened to welcome water and flourish. This is pie in the sky sci-fi than sci. Instead, I see a hovering factor, by virtue of all the universe structures being 'intergrated' - and an intergration negates any premise of randomity. A stray key found on Mars can legitimately be deemed a random occurence - but not so if it exclusively alligns with a lock also found on Mars: there is an intergration here which negates any randomity. That we cannot identify or prove this mysterious hovering factor which allows/controls intergration of all things, does not mean there is'nt one, cannot be one, it is myth and illogical, unscientific, or that an unsound premise be adopted instead. I see its antithesis as fitting those conclusions. There is equally, if not more so, nil proof otherwise. And such logic has nothing whatsoever to do with theology or beliefs - its logic with no alternatives, and not diminished wherever that arrow may incline.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Its like learning to walk. In both cases there is a unique inherent wiring which makes this happen once triggered. It does not happen indiscriminately or by the input of the parent or the child absolutely. A hovering factor impacts here - there is intergration.
quote: I think whoever did not select the human kind from a list of all other life forms as possessing a unique factor would fail the test. Logic, science and maths is preemtively based on honesty.
quote: Which Joseph Goebbels - the one which said work will set you free? I prefer: 'MAN SHALT NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE'. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Good insight there. Ironically, the stimuli does not bump the same result in other life forms but one. It means either the stimuli is very selective - or that it is in turn bumped by an impacting factor, rendering it a conduit at best. Stimuli have different meanings, based upon its application. For sure, stimuli does not denote a random bump - else it would have no impact per se. A stroke of lightning can be termed as a stimuli - but it won't necessailly beget speech. Here we see, one must look past the conduit - and the result affirms only a hovering control factor applies. This is true even when their own premise is countenanced: that the stimuli creates variances to allign with the object it impacts - signifies its control factor!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Its not my knowledge - I saw it in genesis. For sure, it need not require the condoning of everything else you don't accept.
However, I will say one thing: the issue of speech and of the categorising of life forms by 'kinds' based on vegetation, water, air, land - and speech, as declared in genesis - has greater significance than first imagined. It is epochial, and the reason deliberated by so many forums and scientific papers today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The provision of classifying life forms by order of their existentialism and primal design [in water or in the air], is transcendent of the sub-set imprints of their skelatal and biological imprints.
Consider if you were witness to a new planet emerging with all its different life forms, what would strike you first: that some are strictly air borne and some ocean borne - or whether some had protruding jaws and others had shorter legs. This is the vista of Genesis, and it constitutes correct taxamony. It does not render the ToE subset divisions wrong. This is also the reason humans constitute a difference in kind, uneffected by the sub-set allocations but despite it, and the error in ToE. Regardless, I do not have to find too many scientists too fearful - or worse, to condone the blatant - only a few good men will suffice, and there is no problem here either. I see Genesis as a deceptively simple but brilliant observation here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Stimulus = singular
Stimuli = plural Jon Spellcheck in instant reponse forums too - nahhhhhhh!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: You are making it superfluous, so I cannot agree. While the ToE has its merit, it does not apply in the transcendent premise. Thus I analogised witnessing a planet and life form emerging. If you were darwin and witnessing the scenario from inception, you'd record in your diary first as per Genesis, then later on would you look closer and record that some land based and air borne life forms have marked subtle variances. Genesis is correct - without any denting from ToE. The ToE variances is a never ending process, and further breakdowns of differences can be found the more life forms are scrutinised more closely. One kind of poodle is different from another 10 other kinds of poddles, ensuring a never ending treshold of variations across the life form menus. It does not effect Genesis at all, both are not right - as the first level of categorising. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024